On recurring bouts of panic

Its 17th March 2020 here in Victoria Australia .  Supermarket shelves everywhere in every town are being stripped bare. Last week it was just toilet paper oats and rice you couldn't get but this week you will struggle to get meat and frozen goods . The shelves are bare with people every where . The accepted practice of self isolation by choice has become  mandatory with large events being cancelled like the place is going into lock down . groups of over 500 were banned. today groups of over 100 are banned . The threat is a new version of  a coronavirus

I am not a panic merchant and hopefully weigh up risk well in my areas of ecosystem stress. With the current threat from a new virus I expect the time for self isolation will soon pass - as most people become exposed to it personally .This does not mean there is not irrational level of panic about ( see below)
 My advice is that but we all must take the best medical advice even if we have our doubts ( as they do ) about whether we can prevent deaths from it easily. and by intervention and change of normal habits .
As with all risk ,we should not invent , as the potential non objective   threatened  participants,  our own concerns ( eg need to test ourselves with expensive agents ) . We do not need to , as usual avoid taking up the time  management need to keep discussing and consulting for possible practical and achievable  choice constraints. Those delegated to provide authority on these matters.( observers)need time and respect.
  Risk as the former posts speak,  requires rapid but timely site and time specific consideration and audience panic will not help governments do that in the limited time available .What size hammer isn't always the issue if we think  hammers ? we can do more damage than good . Its not only technique and changing daily technique but the likely Cost benefit of EACH vaguely relevant action.


BACKGROUND     "No time for panic"  A paper

I have been preparing since before Christmas Nov 2019 a paper for a science conference ( ISCAST.org ) on the subject of why people are in such a panic about environmental risk  issues .
The subject of the paper is on unreasonable food ,fire and water worries.


The positive thing is if the right people use the right tools we can avoid the sustainability that has so plagued our past .
The late entry of the coronavirus in autumn 2020 came as a  complete surprise because my issues are water soil food and fire worries . see the brief here .
While I did a top microbiology  course at Uni and have studied soil ever since i don't feel qualified to predict the outcome of complex disease questions best left to others.
However as an competent environmental risk assessor as well,  its clear that the some reactions are more in panic than in substance. The right hammer in the right place should be left to those who listen closely to show themselves approved .
We know progress and seriousness of the disease can be expected to be clearer in a few months time when it has spread more widely around the world, The Prime Minster has,  it seems, as we all should ,  taken the Chief Medical Officers advice ( as as he take advice) and set the cautionary period of six months .( at the outside ?) While there is clearly lots more panic than is justified , sound risk management means we wait on the best medical advice . It will not surprise me if the widespread presence of the disease amongst humans in a few months time means that like will go back to normal .Will that knowledge at least , we can postpone some events.

I hope that we do not go back to the unconvincing idea of sterilizing all substrates (like our hands )
There is still a lot of misinformation about , especially amongst those who assume authority ( the managements classes and wannabes )  see note below

I did micro at uni over 50 yrs ago and studied/speculated it in soils and substrates weekly ever since.
IMO The basic vulnerabilities and functions of viruses are known but its the ecological associations ( just as in my work) that are probably not . We were taught very clearly over 50 years ago with the "Eastern" focus on results”( technology eg Japan ) that basic scientific research would suffer . Its certainly true of research in my area of ecological risk assessment and prosecution. Perhaps you can tell me -Who is doing primary research on microbiological ecology ?

Take  the out of hand panic about hand washing -hand sanitizes

Hand sanitizes 
60% alcohol,  if you use it on your hands all the time will take away much of the oil and colonies that normally live on your skin. You  are best to keep your hands clean but don't keep offering new tenants a place at your house by killing off the old ones .
Your hands are what is known in biochemistry as a substrate
If you want to be ahead of the game take the ecologists point of view  http://ecomia.blogspot.com

More fake news from ABCTV

I have been listening all day to the ABCTV reporting of fires, mainly in NSW TODAY December 21st with Andrew Gaugin at the helm.




The ABC should be prosecuted for crying wolf with their constant talk of "catastrophe " , Until the wind gets up , the danger is , at worst ,severe , not catastrophic . http://ondewolf.blogspot.com..


Take the bushfires driven by northerlies in our area . Lorne went in minutes as did many areas burnt in 1939 fires

.

Catastrophes occur because people believe half baked crap

Some examples 














Background . There are always things we don't know in the precipitation of a man made disaster,  but the evidence is that ,what was obvious to a few, or very few ,wasn't effectively communicated to those who could have done something to prevent it. 

The occasions when no one saw the risk are  rare and not the focus here.
The terrible truth is that  there are often many ways on the road to catastrophe to prevent it,  which makes the noise from constant general talk of catastrophe just another example of careless crap .


The other terrible truth is that not many of us are good listeners - especially when it comes our objectivity about a bigger picture. about the truth others may have ( Peterson's rule 9)

Take this claim from the  climate catastrophians that "the end of the world is nigh " ,Why aren't many of  us NOT listening to them? 
I heard someone say on the sacred ABC  that 100% of scientists agree with him  , but  that's a lie.  Noone should follow a liar or treat the ABC staff as knowing what we need to know-- most are not anywhere near practicing scientists .A deep trust in what ALL scientists think is not very deep because scientists dont always agree - esp on implications of their knowledge.
I hate it that my profession is implicated but not properly involved (say debate), but you should know we scientists get ignored too- whatever we truly know!--

We are not listening to the  catastrophians too because we don't really know where the climate catastrophe persons want us to run to? If such people want to be listened (and not further condemned ) they must  succinctly save time and spell out the road to avoidance. No more burning of any kind ?, Sequestration of a truly substantive kind? 
With volcanoes and landslides,it helps if a local scientist is on the ground , You the reader need to know there are none-NOW - there used to be before , TODAY you NOW get a noise on your phone or on radio . ring 000 what a huge waste of money is spent by state governments  trying to act like parents to us !  "I will tell you when your life is at risk " --they say .You would be mad to trust them  

It is the very crime of the catastrophians that they misuse hearing time  by not being specific .
Is it the crime of our very own broadcaster that they are quite subtle and sly  in refusing to let a variety of voices ( close to action ) be heard on the subject /their subject choice .( thankfully One 2 One and other programs like Arndo is changing things)
 Real risk reduction always requires  specific recognition of cocontentating forces. This is of course is the annoying truth -you have to listen to the long winded way of all scientists and observers in practice-to see when the planets collide --- too bad there are no short cuts,, and crying wolf kills  )
The crime of the catastrophians is that they waste time talking about risk in ways which do not really address it . 
The important  but differing roles of the student , the participant and the observer ( very important subject noted here with S , O ' and P's below ) is not the main focus here.

The very human reasons why proper communication did not occur,  as with the fable, is the focus here.,  I have had the privilege of being both S, P and O as a geoscientist working in rural areas.

These deep historic and ongoing realities in men's failure to really listen to each other MUST be taken as critical if we are to avoid both small and large disasters. Excuse making we can't stop, but by being alert and not alarmed ,we can avoid more disasters.  

The Aberfan tragedy 1966  
The risk of a pile of excavated fill going thixotrophic when saturated would have been observed by many people in most moist towns across the country. You don't have to be an expert to notice ( S+O) important things-- to be a good observer (O)  ,

Geoscientists know the risk of landslide to be very high  and the risk of slurry slide to come with momentum energy that would be developed by its height in the landscape ( the situation at Aberfan) . Sitting high above a city,  its hard not to think slurry and landslide at some point. Why the blindness? (B)
 While one might have expected the local geotechnical engineers (S) to have at one moment noticed the probable structural  failure of fill outside,  their daily focus  was quite normally  on structural failure inside the mine ( where lives were also at risk of being lost ) ,

A key risk  for any of us is that we can be so close to something  ( a good thing and the best thing )  (P) is we can't see it (S)   We need to listen to each other to live well .
 Prosecution of sound risk management usually requires at least TWO parties( eg P+O) to talk to each other. 
We don't know who didn't talk to who,  but we do know that as usually happens with HBC-- the obvious is touted as  cause  when in reality risk will usually run deeper. The creek was a focus for some but the low factor of safety was all that mattered . We know the very high rainfall of the time was blamed by management but those of who study the substance know that all sort of  secondary is normally highly distractionary.
Yes  for eg rainfall is a cause but,,,,,,,,,

If you cut no deeper  that the risk of bush fire being increased by higher than normal temperatures (TODAY- drafted in November)  you will probably be not advancing the cause of prevention protection and real wisdom about risk.

If you talk when someone else should be talking , you risk being the problem. 

GPS on our phones should be used as a way of alerting people to risks. 

You heard it first from Emperors Academy
Don' t forget to never leave technology in the hands of wannabes , Give it over to professional scientists ( and geoscientists in particular )

Situation normal

When the children insist they know things , wise adults stop talking . Pity about the not so wise!



THIS Aesops fable provides us with a quick link to reality and the poor ways we often deal with risks. Effective risk advice is about timing specifics , so many wannabes are out of order by always talking about it .

The problem of cry wolf  is particularly acute in our age because less and less people have daily jobs ( like farming or working in the environment) which expose them daily to risk .
But that's by no means  all
The stupidity didn't start yesterday and the children problem has always been with us .

What many ageing and inexperienced Western reactionaries  don't realize is that they have fallen for excuses for our behavior  ( nature does not dismiss nurture)  and accepted the bad and immature practices of childhood.  Petersons rule no 9
So the problem of panic talk is particularly acute in our age because we as a culture do not respect the authorship and calming influence of the whole truth that comes with study and experience -- Find and talk to the really busy people who know the area- if you have time .

Our homes are bombarded with noise and worry. Best to switch off the TV at least .
I'll leave it to you when you switch off the children


He --who like to  thinks he knows more about the outside world  "Did you hear the weather report for tomorrow Darling ?" 
 She ..who just lets him think things,  but feeds him facts   "Apparently there is a 95% chance that the media will find a new catastrophe to talk about tomorrow."

He   "Whats for lunch ? "

Some other time we will continue the conversation about who knows more about what! The conversation is not always nice , because we will challenge each other , but very healthy
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SziWxOYTcDY3YHy9wnpR59aBstzXIYm6Lk2_8lr8TcM/edit?usp=sharing


Meanwhile , I suggest we all go to confession


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zRE_Bn-V8LuLhUQI4KIwoM4X5d0ToZHEh_EK-TbuXzg/edit?usp=sharing

Adapted from the confession used in Christian meetings worldwide for centuries .

Conflating the Conflagration

Last weeks media madness will go down in history as the last ditch effort of the worry warriors to try and make a case for a future holocaust - and incendiary end to life on earth as we know it .
"The bush fires are worse than ever ever before " .
Its not been enough to state science science science, the  arrogant unqualified now break the fundamental rules in science  . The ABC and many others have to promote a future hell on earth by joining the dots in a way which offends anyone with half a brain , "The bush fires are worse than ever ever before " .
The Australian  newspaper was the only one to state the crap production in the media ; the real news about all the fake news

The poor old Age has forgotten what it is to report anything that isn't PC .Like so many desperate to avoid denying the failure of the progressive faith , they waste hours filtering facts to suit their theories.
.Does The Age  remember we stopped reading it years ago ? . They remember how the Argus went under . An unrepentant  subtle sly and bloody approach to the house on the hill won't save them from final judgement .

In a paradox of profound proportions these blinkered minds are out doing old Hanrahan. At least he was in the ball park ..

Meanwhile the real dystopian elements undermining the West go undiscussed -- except maybe at church before the normal speculation outside afterwards.  Speculation is in the right order in such places .

The fanaticism of wolf risk worrying is all around us

Examples
1.  Feminists on Q andA last night .Nov 4th2019   The modern woman who wants sexual freedom finds the man who takes the same licence to be bad company . What does she expect ? Reject traditional marriage with its paradoxical but workable  tensions in honor, leadership and servanthood and this is what you get.    Its abused by men especially  tis true,  but not by all men .  The wolf is not visiting every house in teh street ; God knows why soem are leaving teh door open for him.
2. The risks of environmental damage are real , but if you don' t study the world , you don't realize that not all man does is bad ( new doctrines of misanthropy )
If you study the stuff of life you get to realize  that resilience is real and  provides real reasons when not to worry ; when to cut cull and carry and repair . https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AJI5nO4FipVQajqtnJm91NbQLh-axceVUpcu3qgHk-4/edit?usp=sharing

When do you ever learn something watching the ABC on environmental affairs ?

The ABC are not fear mongers you might say !
 On the surface i think you would be right,  because they go to a  lot of trouble to not look like they are.
Which means,  if it is true, thinking audiences need to dig deeper.
One of the reasons I don't learn much from watching the ABC is because they are so cynical.
Another reason I don't learn from them is that they don't employ  practical scientist who can answer tough questions. Kruzelnitsky and Sampson love making points of theory , for example hoping the audience will be impressed , Most of us expect probability statements on real risks .
Clearly many in the ABC audience do not see the problem I have --- until you put the question above and the failures below ( just examples ) or mention Political correctness

https://hanrahan.blogspot.com/2019/10/hope-in-all-dust.html

ABC journos do have reason to worry  ( on the  reporting of environmental risk in particular )

1. The Science Show has been run for decades by a non scientist ,
2. Some of the lack of controversy ( should be normal) is due to tokenistic, quickgrabs and ignorance the subject matter  ( the other side of the story- esp political )
3.  Major political blunders on environment have occurred on their watch WITHOUT any  apology about the fact that they ignored warnings from competent experts, Who were they listening to ??? Politicians ????
   --1   State attempts to create water
   --2   An 18 billion MD plan that isn't working-
   --3  Rural people switching off ABC and watching SKY
   --4 Many bushfire imperatives from RC's have not been adopted
   
   3  They continue to expect us to believe polys and media people know things on the above eco and env subjects ..    They read "Scoop"  but never got it
   
   
   THIS  WEEK
4. PIDDLING into the Barham . The redgums need a real big flood to set new trees growing in sustainable sites ( not salty ones !!)  http://cuttingedgecare.blogspot.com
5. SEAL explosion  ( landline )   I mean even  today noone has twigged that the devastation that the seals have done in Lake Alexandrena is related to stupidly simple ideologues like  Burke and Wong putting precious water into a semi saline pond  in the gospel name of "environmental flow."    The MD plan is NO plan is it doesn't cover "predictable events "